PvXwiki talk:Nothing Deserves a 0-0-0
prof=w/mo prot=12 healing=3 smite=12 tactics=0+3 strength=0+3 sword=0+3 axe=0+3 hammer=0+3mendingof protectionpacifismsmiteof lightstrikestrikeboon /build I'm pretty sure this disproves the entire basis for this policy. --[[User:Edru_viransu|'Edru viransu']]//[[User_talk:Edru_viransu|'QQ about me']] 03:38, 16 August 2007 (CEST) I wouldn't say that...the possibilities for that build are endless! [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 04:05, 16 August 2007 (CEST) :Yeah I need to change the name to something that isnt lengthy. Like uhh... it was just in my head, forgot it just now. [[User:Misfate|'Misfate']] 04:09, 16 August 2007 (CEST) :: Technically that build up there should have a higher creativity score. ‽[[user:Eronth|-'('єяøהħ')']] no 04:11, 16 August 2007 (CEST) :::Innovation does not mean being bad at the game. Also, Innovation is not creativity, it's this: "This criterion describes how new the idea behind this build is. Does it use a new approach for dealing with a known task or even act as a precursor for dealing with a previously unconsidered task? To what extend is it expected to become a prototype for a new class of builds?" A bunch of random crap stuck together doesn't really qualify as an "idea", much less a new one. It's not at all a new approach for dealing with a task, since it doesn't deal with any tasks. It's not likely to become a prototype for a new prototype of builds because it's a horrible idea. --[[User:Edru_viransu|'Edru viransu']]//[[User_talk:Edru_viransu|'QQ about me']] 04:13, 16 August 2007 (CEST) what's the point of this policy? some things do deserve a 0-0-0, and this is easily covered in PvXwiki:Real Vetting#0-0-0 — [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 05:26, 17 August 2007 (CEST) :Well... it is true that while some builds may deserve a 0-0-0, if a build works at all, it should have at least a 1 in effectiveness, and Misfate is right that people giving it 0s in effectiveness to Warrior builds lacking IAS or DW or something isn't an accurate depiction of a builds ability according to a reasonable, objective standard where we are simply asking if the build works at all. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 05:33, 17 August 2007 (CEST) Voting is flawed anyway. You should be able to vote from 3 choices: Good, Viable, Trash. Instead you're fucking around whether a build deserves 1-0-0 or 0-0-0 Asdfg 05:36, 17 August 2007 (CEST) ::You forgot "Great" :P. Regardless though, I think it's nice to have some choice (particularly if we can get a search engine up and running) because builds are Good in different ways, and not all Good Builds are as good as each other. I do however agree that in the cases where builds are going to the trash anyway (or in other cases where it doesn't really make a difference), actually arguing over this kinda thing is, at the very least, inane. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 05:38, 17 August 2007 (CEST) 0 - 0 - 0 is warranted in some instances, I suppose. I think the real issue that's arisen is that builds are being handed 0s regardless of any merit they might have. A 0 in Effectiveness should mean that the build is completely unusable and that there is absolutely no purpose in running it, but I see it being handed out pretty freely because someone doesn't like the build, even if the build DOES work (albeit poorly). And on that same note, Innovation should really just pertain to the build itself, rather than if the person submitting it is the originator of the build. - Vermain 07:38, 17 August 2007 (CEST) Okay so I didn't read over the entire convo. But my ideas are that first, everything deserves a 1 in innovation at the least, because if it can be rated 0, it should be immediately deleted according to the duplicate build policy. Also everything should have at least a 1 in effectiveness, because if it was 0 (e.g. a joke build with ABSOLUTELY NO SKILLS IN BAR) it should be deleted immediately per WELL too. I also wish to extend this to "nothing deserves a 5-5-5 or 0-0-0" too, since NO BUILD IS ZOMFGWTFBBQPWNZORZUBERLEETHAX enough to get 5-5-5. In other words, no build is perfect, ANet makes sure of that. E.g. A/W tigersin should not get all those 5-5-5s... look at it's self defense. At the most a 4 in universitality. So yeah, we might call it "nothing deserves maxed out votes" meaning either maxed out good or maxed out bad. -- Nova -- ( ) 23:15, 17 August 2007 (CEST) Voting Style What you vote on a build all depends on your style of voting. I personally vote on a curve. I don't just look to see if a warrior is good, but is it good compared to the other warrior in the metagame. The warrior on the front page is horrible compared to a shock axe, rending axe, etc. and probably would get a very low rating by me, at least a 0 in effectiveness. In additon, it's a terrible idea to make a policy governing how you must rate a build. For example, i beleive that if we were to do that, that every single vote that gave a searing flames ele a 5 for inovation should be struck. I do think that the voting system needs to be revamped(a 60-30-10 split or even a 60-40 split with innovation removed all together) but telling people how they must vote is foolish. builds that are unfairly scored will have that vote removed by an admin. Don't want to see any 0-0-0's? then don't post a crappy build.Bob fregman 20:18, 19 August 2007 (CEST) :I dunno, any build that deserves a 0 in effectiveness = immediate deletion per WELL, so I guess nothing that is stored on this wiki deserves a 0-0-0. -- Nova -- ( ) 01:32, 20 August 2007 (CEST) ::Votes are all subjective, that is the problem. Can't get around it with this policy. We wouldn't have a zero score if builds didn't deserve it, and some really do. Even if this policy passed (unlikely), people would just vote 0-0-1, and the build would get a 0.2 overall rating instead of 0.0 (that's about a %4 approval rating). As illustrated, this policy wouldn't do much for the wiki if implemented; it seems designed to spare some bad build authors' feelings. If they can't handle their build being shot down, they aren't demonstrating the maturity befitting someone playing a 'T' rated game. Yes, I know some younger kids play GW, but I don't really care about sparing their feelings either. In short, this policy would have little effect on the way the wiki runs if implemented, and the effect would bring no benefit whatsoever. (Btw, the two example builds on the main page should receive all zeros. No IMS means you can be kited endlessly, no IMS means slower damage and adrenaline gain. Skills are just random +damage, energy-cost attacks. You can't do anything but Healsig if your target chooses to kite, you might as well be useless. W/Mo is an example of bad taken to the extreme. Heh, if kited, the W/Mo has an advantage in his ranged Smiting spells. So yeah, if you're being beaten by that build in any aspect, the build flunks.) - Krowman 01:56, 20 August 2007 (CEST) :::Honestly, all I'd like to see is more sense being put into the voting process. Voting 0-0-0 on a build that isn't completely unusable is silly and lazy. Let's take something like the Spirit's Strength Ritualist: yes, it's gimmicky, yes, a Battle Rage Warrior could probably outdamage it, but does it work? Is it effective? Does it have an advantage, however small, over more traditional melee classes with Sight Beyond Sight? Yes, undoubtedly. There's a reason why we have four categories for voting. Not all builds are equal, but some people don't care greatly about playing the best. Some people enjoy playing "fun" builds like Dark Aura bombers instead of running their Shadow Prison Assassin through RA for the 40th time. I like the Wiki because it provides a place for people to put their build ideas out, however silly they might seem, and have other people use it. Hell, I've seen people in RA using some of my dumb build ideas, and it's extremely gratifying to know someone is getting some fun out of it. - Vermain 02:23, 20 August 2007 (CEST) ::::Just put SbS on your War/Derv. I've done it before, works fine, though it is a prime target for stripping as most people run a BSurge to reduce melee pressure. Now you're better than a Spirit Strength Rit. We seem to have two different agendas for the wiki. You would like to make it more fun/pleasant. I would like to improve the quality of its builds. People may not care about playing the best, but we have already have policy stating we want to host only the best. WELL is a heavy-handed way for us to ensure that we don't waste our time on builds that don't hold any effective value. Fun = frenzy wanding your way to a glad point. We aren't going to recommend that, or any other build that is promoted as being enjoyable to play. I enjoy winning matches, not creating builds to make you giggle, and if someone has come to the wiki looking for that kind of joke build, they should develop a sense of humour and create one themselves. That's why this policy isn't worth our while: it does little but try to protect some users' feelings. Fact is, we can't favor everyone's build, and anything from a 0.0 to a 2.4 score is going to face the same deletion, so restricting people from voting all zeros is an arbitrary exercise of power. This policy brings no practical benefit to the table, and while it may make new players feel a little fuzzier inside, it will irritate our more active contributors and create a negative community environment if we were to start flexing our admin muscle to prevent them from voting in a certain way. - Krowman 02:38, 20 August 2007 (CEST) :::::The wiki isn't here to give authors some gratification. We save most gimmicky builds in one for or another, but you have to be realistic. A dark aura bomber is fun, but can it compete realistically with the metagame builds. By telling people that they aren't allowed to vote a certain way, your taking away the whole point of a vote. I'd personally like to see people here learn what innovation is, but they dont, and you don't see me proposing to strike all votes that give a wrong innovation score. To be short, this policy is unnecesary.Bob fregman 02:42, 20 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::Delete every non-metagame build on this wiki then. WELL them all. If you want to "host only the best" delete everything that isn't in the great category. Change the name of this wiki to MetagameBuilds. [[User:Misfate|'Misfate']] 02:48, 20 August 2007 (CEST) :::::::NOB garnered a lot of support over at GWiki... - Krowman 02:58, 20 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::::Peace and Harmony, people. Peace and Harmony. -- Nova -- ( ) 02:59, 20 August 2007 (CEST) :::::::::The point isn't to host only the best builds(though some people might say otherwise, in practice it's obviously not the case), but we don't want to host junk either. Original and fun to play builds have their places, but if the community voting on them wants to be serious, then you have to be understanding when it recieves a bad vote, including a 0-0-0.Bob fregman 03:26, 20 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::I'm fine with people seeing a build as inferior, but 0-0-0 isn't at all a realistic vote. It's a lazy "I think this sucks" vote. It's just as bad as voting 5-5-5; all it does is skew the rating. - Vermain 19:16, 20 August 2007 (CEST) :::::::::::0-0-0- is realistic if you vote on a curve, which is to say that you compare the builds effectivness with another builds, that may very well totally blow it out of the water. Who cares though? A trash build still goes into the trash, whether it has a 2.3 or a 0.0, or is the point here to spare some authors feelings and put crappy builds in the wiki?Bob fregman 00:00, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::::Obviously, it should be encouraged to compare a build to another one, especially if it's superior (I.E: something like a RtL E/A with the SP Sin), but that shouldn't be the sole criteria for Effectiveness. Does the build work? Is it effective? If it doesn't work as well as the SP Sin, fine, give it a lower rating, but unless you can't do a single thing with the build it doesn't deserve a 0 for Effectiveness. As for your second point: the difference between a build managing to get into Other and it getting trashed is very slim, and a few 0-0-0 votes could easily push it below what it needs. - Vermain 03:49, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::::::A '0' does not equate to "...is able to accomplish 0 tasks." Voting is subjective; this applies here, in real life, etc. - Krowman 04:47, 21 August 2007 (CEST) :::::::::::::::Then the obvious solution is to set up some sort of standard criteria for what 0-5 means. It's precisely the fact that one man's 0 is another man's 1 which skews the voting process. Is 0 supposed to mean "unworkable" or "works poorly"? There's a big difference between the two. - Vermain 06:23, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::::::::Discussed before. Too rigid. Either man's zero fails, end result is the same. If a build is borderline pass or fail (with our success rating being a lowly 50%), the build isn't worth fighting for. - Krowman 06:28, 21 August 2007 (CEST) :::::::::::::::::Again, it still can skew the rating badly. Getting a build favored is obviously important for people; otherwise, they'd put it in their userpage and let people look at it. It skews the rating badly to do it. My only other concern is that it's also not constructive to give 0-0-0, since it doesn't address any specific points. While a build might be extremely effective in doing something it was designed for, it may have poor universality, or vice versa. Ideally, a jack-of-all-trades build that can do several things at once should get much higher universality than a heavily focused build, but would likely gain less for effectiveness. Good example: a Rt/P build someone showed me that used Weapon of Remedy and Vengeful Weapon combined with spear attacks. It's not as focused, sure, but it can do several things at once, and is adaptable to the situation, depending on if the team needs more DPS or more support. Giving something like that a 0-0-0 because it isn'y extremely effective at one goal would be disingenuous, and doesn't give the build writer the proper sort of feedback, and neither does it let someone browsing the builds know why the build is in Other; all he sees are the 0-0-0s and thinks that the build sucks, while it may just be that it has a low Effectiveness rating. :::::::::::::::::I'm sorry for being so wordy but I think it's important that the ratings reflect what the build actually is, rather than simply giving 5-5-5 for a good metabuild and 0-0-0 for a build someone thinks isn't effective. - Vermain 06:45, 21 August 2007 (CEST) Most builds deserve a 0-0-0 I disagree utterly with this policy suggestion. Most builds do deserve a 0-0-0, because most people who play GW are, to be blunt, bad at GW, at buildmaking, tactics, and at execution of builds and tactics, and as such, they produce, for the most part, very bad builds. --[[User:Edru_viransu|'Edru viransu']]//[[User_talk:Edru_viransu|'QQ about me']] 04:56, 21 August 2007 (CEST) :That's exactly what we needed at the wiki, more admins to agree with me. ;) - Krowman 04:58, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::Winrar is Edru. I concur fully. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚₮/ 〛 05:03, 21 August 2007 (CEST) :::lol, me too... things will always deserve 0's. -- [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (T/ /Sysop) 05:09, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::::so sad, yet so true. Bob fregman 05:51, 21 August 2007 (CEST) :::::If most people in GW are bad, then why give a build with no IMS a 0-0-0 because people will kite? Bad people don't kite. Why give a sin build with 1 30 sec recharge hex a 0-0-0 because people will preveil? Bad people don't preveil. [[User:Misfate|'Misfate']] 05:59, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::Because builds should work against the good people. He's saying that alot of bad people put up builds, many of which don't work on anyone with half a brain. Most people are bad, take a loot at the great section, and then at the other section. Then, if you're feeling daring, look at trash. Bob fregman 06:06, 21 August 2007 (CEST) :::::::/win for Bob...again. - Krowman 06:07, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::::Wut u r guys talking bout'? No build needs no zeroe 0 zero. I car lot tho u no. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 06:20, 21 August 2007 (CEST) :::::::::wtb grammar for readem. — [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 06:21, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::Again, if the majority of the community wants this to become a metabuild depository, that's fine. I'm not going to explode in agony if people can't rate my builds or something; there's always the userpage for that. I'm just arguing assuming that the current system is sticking around. - Vermain 06:25, 21 August 2007 (CEST) :::::::::::Metabuilds will always get favored. That's not a problem. Unique builds, however, also have their place. They just have to be competitive with meta builds. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 06:28, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::::Builds become popular because they are effective (in the PvP community anyways, some PvE guys still play Mending Wammos). /sigh... - Krowman 06:30, 21 August 2007 (CEST) :::::::::::::Anything that Git Ers Dun is gud enough for me. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 06:32, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::::::You're missing the point. The wiki isn't, at least in principle, meant to have just the metagame builds, otherwise there'd be no other category, and probably no good category either, and really, it probably wouldn't be a wiki. The fact is though, that some builds submitted are so bad, that storing them is silly really. Again, what's the difference if a build is sent to trash with a 0.0, or a 2.2? Nothing, it's still trash. Like krowman(i think) said, a 0 doesn't mean that it fails to perform at all, it just means that it performs so badly(at least in comparison to others) that it might as well have not be used at all.Bob fregman 06:33, 21 August 2007 (CEST) (resetting indent) To be fair, a 0 does in fact (by the standards that were created when Real Vetting was made official) mean that a build fails to perform at all. At least, that's what was envisioned. On another note, a 0.0 is in fact very different than a 2.2 at least from a theoretical standpoint. Because, if another person were to vote and give it let's say a 4, depending on the overall number of votes, if the build had previously had a 2.3 let's say, it might be moved to Acceptable rather than trash. I think that part of the problem may be that if we skew our voting such that a bad, but still workable build, gets a 0-0-0, than the votes themselves, without some kind of uniformity, lose all meaning. I'm not saying that there aren't builds that may in fact deserve 0-0-0, merely that there's a reason that back when Real Vetting was made official, we thought it prudent to standardize what a 1 meant, and what a 2 meant, etc. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 06:40, 21 August 2007 (CEST) :One must take into consideration that people often think in extremes. It is either great, or terribad. There really is no middle ground for the general public. Thinking otherwise, is bound to fail imo ;). Ok, now lets "git er dun!" (a.k.a delete this) [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 06:43, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::No deletion, just be moved to failed proposals. People can continue to discuss that way. - Krowman 06:44, 21 August 2007 (CEST) :::Referring to DE-If that's the case, and there is a set standard for all builds without a curve, then real vetting needs to increase to at least a 1-10 scale, though probably higher. I don't know if it matters, but if we aren't grading builds based on their performance in comparison to others, then we need more room for precision voting, otherwise you get builds that are clearly inferior with scores in teh ballpark of much greater builds, which will confuse some newer and even maybe semi-seasoned players.Bob fregman 06:46, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::::It is already more complex then it has to be imo. During the creation of Real Vetting, some were in Favor of the current policy, others believed that there should be no Innovation and only 3 possible scores. I was one of them. Giving Users a range from 1-5, is simpy to complex for some...thus a small range imo is always better. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 06:50, 21 August 2007 (CEST) We all know even the most, err... honored contributors se their votes as weights, and that's why we give 0-0-0s. — [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 06:45, 21 August 2007 (CEST) :::I say delete this. It simply does not make any sense. If you are against 000, then don't vote 000. Otherwise, if anyone took this policy seriously, 000 would not exist. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 06:47, 21 August 2007 (CEST) ::::Silly to delete, Krowman's right, it does no harm in Failed Proposals, and, while there is a great deal of opposition, the discussion here is in fact still ongoing to an extent. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 06:56, 21 August 2007 (CEST) Just A Thought Although I moved this to "Failed Proposals," I think that the idea behind this policy was sound, if not the practical nature of such a policy. Wikipedia has a number of "essays" that aren't Policies or even Guidelines, they are merely discourses that reflect a certain view shared by a number of editors. If you combine what people have said in support of this policy, I feel like it might come out as a nice little essay about, if nothing else, understanding the meaning behind the "numbers" (i.e. ratings), and taking time to actually consider that when rating. Just a thought, but not a bad idea imo. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 06:55, 21 August 2007 (CEST) This Policy is basically taken care of in the Vote Removal Section of RV. If the 000 is unsound, then it should and will be removed. I don't get it I guess... [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 07:02, 21 August 2007 (CEST) Perhaps. I think the key is that a 0-0-0 can be "unfair" without necessarily being "unsound." As has been pointed out in earlier sections, voting is largely subjective. What that means is that I could argue with someone all day about a 0-0-0 they gave to let's say an Acceptable build, without being able to show conclusively that the vote itself is unsound because there are any number of arguments that the voter could use to prove that, to the contrary, the vote is entirely justified. However, whether or not the vote is sound in practice, the theory behind the vote may be flawed which is what I think this policy was intending to demonstrate. As such, I thought that an essay might be a nice idea. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 07:15, 21 August 2007 (CEST) bump this policy now plz Builds that function at least a little automatically dont deserve 0-0-0's. a good example is ratings from Build:P/R Paragon Barrager. I personally dont care about about its rating, but i feel that those 3 (by bob, krowman and rapta), along with most other 000 or 555 ratings are unfair. 555s and 000s in general are some of the many reasons that people in GW hate wiki builds (ie most ratings have no grounds to them, and crappy builds make it to the good/great section due to these). im voting for this. ~ [[User:ZamaneeJinn|'ZamaneeJinn']] ( ) 00:08, 31 August 2007 (CEST) :The reason most people dislike builds wikis, from my experience(although I must confess my interaction with GW players is mostly through reading GWO, and talking to the high-level PvP community, and here, so perhaps some may actually feel the way you suggest) is that either they think it devalues buildmaking(i.e. they ignore the existence of obs mode and chat features ingame) or that they are annoyed by the inevitable large population of bad players causing builds to be rated inaccurately(i.e. voting low on a pvp warrior because of frenzy). The latter is thankfully somewhat lessened by vote removal and the former is simply craziness. Also, didn't you go and QQ extensively on their talk pages about those votes? Hardly the actions of someone who doesn't care. I personally don't know if the votes were worthy of removal, because I cannot test the build to see if they are. Any ratings that are or may be invalid should be brought to administrative attention via PvXwiki:Admin noticeboard, though. --[[User:Edru_viransu|'Edru viransu']]//[[User_talk:Edru_viransu|'QQ about me']]/sysop 00:21, 31 August 2007 (CEST) ::People don't like wiki's, because their (Pardon French) shitty empathy warriors with ether feast can't kill a BoA. They blame their troubles on life, and then the Wiki's. "No originality! Using builds that can beat my Wammo! Not fair! I hate life!" or something among those lines. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 00:24, 31 August 2007 (CEST) No bump. Don't like it, write an essay. - Krowman 00:26, 31 August 2007 (CEST) :guys, read top of my userpage. i wanted constructive criticism. responding to a request for that with a 0-0-0 saying "lol this sucks" in a nutshell is not helpful. ~ [[User:ZamaneeJinn|'ZamaneeJinn']] ( ) 01:27, 31 August 2007 (CEST) ::Constructive criticism: This policy has failed. If you would like to influence the thoughts of PvX users that pertain to irresponsible voting, write an essay about it, and present it to the community. - Krowman 02:14, 31 August 2007 (CEST) ::Yeah, this policy is already dead due to the fact that there was so much opposition to it. As I said in one of the above threads, this would make a nice essay, but it isn't gonna be a policy. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 05:39, 31 August 2007 (CEST) I think some things DO deserve a 0-0-0. If I saw a guy trying to SERIOUSLY submit an Echo Mending build, would I give it a 0-0-0? Yes! It doesn't work, it's not versatile, and almost everyone knows of the Echo Mending joke. Thus, that knocks out all 3 catergories. --20pxGuildof 19:16, 24 November 2007 (CET) :Policy necrosis less. [[User:Misfate|'Misfate']] 20:31, 24 November 2007 (CET)